Slashdot Mirror


PS2 to Have 10 Year Lifecycle, PS3 Not Cheap

Anonymous PC Gamer writes "CNet is reporting that Sony's Ken Kutaragi has said that he expect the Playstation 3 to have a ten year life cycle. Methinks Sony's production woes are going to be their achillies heel this time, especially in America. Will Sony be able to survive a couple of months of having another expensive, hard-to-find console with Bill and Co. bloodthirsty at their heels?" From the article: "I'm aware that with all these technologies, the PS3 can't be offered at a price that's targeted towards households. I think everyone can still buy it if they wanted to...But we're aiming for consumers throughout the world. So we're going to have to do our best (in containing the price)."

100 comments

  1. Typo in headline by djfray · · Score: 3, Informative

    Should be "PS3 to have ten year life span...."

    --
    This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
    1. Re:Typo in headline by kryogen1x · · Score: 1

      Hence the from the mixed-messages dept.

    2. Re:Typo in headline by N3Roaster · · Score: 1

      Probably, but the PS2 might just end up with a 10 year lifespan as well. It first came out in, what, 2000? I tend to wait on next generation consoles until either selection on my current console dries up or there are enough games that really interest me on the next generation consoles. It'll be a while before new PS2 games stop coming out and while I'm sure at least one of the next three consoles will build a library that looks interesting to me, and while I'd guess this will happen around 2007-8, it could take as long as until 2010.

      Not a problem. By then if whichever console I decide to buy had production problems, they should be sorted out and I can avoid the early adopter tax.

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
    3. Re:Typo in headline by interiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's virtually the same as saying "from the we-know-there's-confusion-in-the-writeup-somewhere -but-we're-too-lazy-to-RTFA dept.", isn't it?

    4. Re:Typo in headline by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 1

      It's funny that your whole argument regarding how long the PS2's lifespan will be is based upon your personal considerations in when you plan to stop buying PS2 games and/or move on to a newer console.

    5. Re:Typo in headline by N3Roaster · · Score: 1

      No, as I didn't get the PS2 at launch. The lifespan of the console is from when it first comes out, not to when the manufacturer releases something else they'd prefer you buy, but until it no longer serves its primary purpose satisfactorily. Just because the manufacturer of whatever microwave oven you own discontinues an old model and puts out a new improved mircowave oven doesn't mean that your perfectly good working microwave oven has reached the end of its lifespan. With entertainment devices, a key consideration is its ability to play new titles. There has never been a next generation console release that coincided with the end of game production for the previous generation. A better analogy might be the phase out of VHS in favor of DVD. I don't intend to buy any more movies on VHS, but VCRs have not quite yet reached the end of their lifespan.

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
    6. Re:Typo in headline by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 1
      "I don't intend to buy any more movies on VHS, but VCRs have not quite yet reached the end of their lifespan."
      Again, what do your personal buying habits have to do with the lifespan of a product?
    7. Re:Typo in headline by N3Roaster · · Score: 1

      Wow, you even quoted it while it whooshed right over your head. Okay. Slowly now.

      Point. There are two primary purposes for a VCR: recording from a video source (such as television) to view later and playing prerecorded video (movies).

      Point. There are superior technologies available for both of these tasks: DVRs for recording and DVD players for watching movies.

      Point. Many people have moved away from VCR technology to these next generation technologies, which might cause some people to believe that the product lifespan for VCRs is over.

      Point. It is still easy to go into a store and buy VHS copies of new movies. It is still easy to go into a store and buy a VCR. (supply)

      Point. People continue to buy VCRs and VHS media. (demand)

      Conclusion. The product lifespan for VCRs is not yet over.

      It's not that hard. In my original post, I used myself as an example because my practices with game consoles are in line with my views on product lifespan, not (as you insist) because my views on product lifespan depend on my personal buying habits (you confused cause with effect). The VCR example was designed to show that the lifespan of a product line can continue beyond my personal use for it, but you missed that.

      Perhaps this could be brought back on topic if you'd like to discuss reasons why the PS2 will probably reach the end of its lifespan closer to the release of the Xbox360, PS3, or Revolution (which one and due to what factors), but this story is getting old, so it probably isn't worth it.

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
  2. Huh? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

    he expect the Playstation 3 to have a ten year life cycle.

    Not withstanding that it should be 'expects', is the PS2 supposed to have the 10 year life cycle, or the PS3 as the article title states?!

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  3. here at sony by phoenix42 · · Score: 0, Troll

    We make the best console for gaming, but it costs $15,000. Too bad you won't get to play it. It's awesome. But if you can save money for 9 years you can still buy one.

    --
    forty-two
    1. Re:here at sony by daviq · · Score: 1

      If it costs that much, you might as well just pay a few thousand and build/maintain a custom computer for 10 years or more.

      --
      Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
    2. Re:here at sony by Valen1260 · · Score: 1

      I've already started saving for the PS9 they advertised a few years back.

  4. Zonk....!!!!! by aztektum · · Score: 3, Informative

    The DAMN TITLE of your story is completely wrong. No where in the articles linked does it say PS2 will have 10-year life span, which we know is false anyway because the PS3 is being launched next year. Hello, Mcfly???

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
    1. Re:Zonk....!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, Retard!!!

      Welcome to the wonderful world of having your manufacturing process shit together for a company like Sony. And why Sony has been raking in the bucks from the PS2 while the Retards from Redmond have bled five billion on the xbox.

      The original Playstation was sold for years after the release of the PS2.

      The PS2 will be sold for years after the PS3 is release next March.

      The PS3 will be sold for years after the release of the PS4.

    2. Re:Zonk....!!!!! by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      Even if the PS3 is comming out next year, the PS2 isn't going to disappear. In the UK, the PS1 came out in 1995, and the PS2 in 2001. Until last year PSone systems were reasonably easy to find, along with a small trickle of budget titles, or EA Sport shovelware. You can still just about find new PS1 stuff, but it's disappearing fast. So the PS1 got about nine / ten years, and I'd imagine the PS2 could do the same really, the popular consoles often have a long tail off. I don't find the idea of the PS2 (or PS3 if it's sucessful) lasting about ten years that stange, although once the sucessor system is released, I'm not expected many blockbuster games though.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    3. Re:Zonk....!!!!! by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Yeah it'll be on shelves and there will probably will be more games made for it, but I'm talking, and so is probably Sony, about their big marketing efforts. You think after the PS3 comes out you will see any PS2 commercials? How many PS1 have there been in the last 4 years? It sounds to me like he's trying to justify a high price by saying "Don't worry though, it'll be our last big console for a few years. It will have our full support for a decade."

      Right away in the article it says that the *PS3* will have a life-span of 10 years. So the title is still inaccurate. Zonk bonks one up again is all I'm saying.

      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    4. Re:Zonk....!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor, poor Zonk. Always getting berated for the shoddy editorial job that (s)he slaps together. I've been keeping an eye on his/her stories to see if all the criticism is fair. Sure enough, there's no debating this one - Zonk is a sloppy piece of work.

    5. Re:Zonk....!!!!! by Elranzer · · Score: 1

      Actually Sony lost money on the PS2 and continues to do so, and they will lose even more on the PS3 than Microsoft will on their Xbox and Xbox 360. Nintendo is the only one who actually makes a profit, yet all the Sony/Microsoft-buttfuckers call Nintendo the "loser" of this generation.

    6. Re:Zonk....!!!!! by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      The only console manufacturer not selling hardware at a loss is Nintendo. Which is why they still turn more profit that the entire Sony corporation.

      Plus, overlapping lifecycles are nothing new. Every console has lived for a while past it's successor.

    7. Re:Zonk....!!!!! by Frodo+Crockett · · Score: 1

      Nintendo is the only one who actually makes a profit, yet all the Sony/Microsoft-buttfuckers call Nintendo the "loser" of this generation.

      I think you mean "buttfuckees".

      --
      "The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
    8. Re:Zonk....!!!!! by Murasaki+Skies · · Score: 1

      Yeah. They really fucked themselves in the ass.

      --
      Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
  5. Clarification by interiot · · Score: 5, Informative
    Slashdot's title and writeup are very confusing. What I got from the article is:
    • PS3 will have a 10-year lifespan (not PS2...)
    • this is because the PS3 will have all the high-def functionality that people might eventually want, but will have them all, up front
    • as a result, some people may not need all of the features of PS3 right away. And it will definitely be expensive, so they may want to delay buying it.
    • but, the PS3 will have tons of features, potentially before other consoles do, so that's the upside
    1. Re: Clarification by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

      What a shame. I was hoping that Nintendo would push the Gamecube to have a long lifecycle, perhaps coexisting with the Revolution. Ergo, I was excited to see that Sony was planning that with the PS2. Except it's really the PS3 and the headline is wrong.

      Slating a 10-year life cycle so early doesn't really guarantee much. If anything, it sounds like hype. "Yes, this console will be so good it won't be obsolete (power-wise) for 10 years". Uh, Sony, breakthroughs are going to happen between now and then, and you guys will be the first to want to capitilize on them.

      So I think Sony will change their mind, and in a few years, someone from Sony will be saying, "The PS4 will be released next year, will be 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 more powerful than the PS3 [or if you prefer, 1X10^60], and [of course] it will have a life cycle of 10 years.".

      Because the real fun comes from seeing how fast your console can render real-time dynamic high-resolution shadows.

      Phew, almost forgot to use sarcasm up to that last line :o

      --
      "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
    2. Re: Clarification by Elranzer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being the Revolution can play Gamecube discs and use their controllers means the Gamecube format can live on. (in fact, the Rev has just faster versions of the same PowerPC and ATI graphics card, so backwards compatibility is not hard at all here). Since the Rev is only supporting up to 480p as far as HDTV/progressive scan goes, and Gamecube games can already support this, it seems the Gamecube format can be a stepping stone to developers learning the Rev format. Developers can still make Gamecube games and Revolution owners can still play them. Unlike playing PS1 games on the PS2, playing GC games on the Rev will look just as good as playing them on the original console.

    3. Re:Clarification by lorelorn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, it sounds like the PS3 will have a 10-year life mainly because it will have been on sale for 5 years before anyone sees value in buying it.

  6. PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by ArmonR · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We're releasing the PS3 with full HD features from the start so that consumers won't have to buy another version of the console in the future. For the same reason, we're using Blu-ray as the PS3's disc format."

    I don't quite understand how they're expecting the PS3 to last 10 years. Given the current pace the hardware industry is advancing, it's unlikely that the PS3 will be too appealing 7 years from now, let alone 10 years. Not to mention how in 6 years, the technology behind the PS3 will be OLD, they'd be able to sell it for $100 US and turn a favorable profit. I can't even begin to imagine how quickly the PS3's hardware will be outdated, let alone it surviving nearly 10 years.

    Imagine using a 486 DX-33 to play computer games on, not quite so entertaining is it. With processor speeds and graphics cards increasing steadily over the years, we're going to be expecting a lot 10 years from now. There haven't been many revolutions in games. Today's games follow the same ideas as those from 10 years ago, only that they've been enhanced, both in complexity and aesthetics. Sony must have something really big up their sleeve, if they think that games can continue to evolve the way they are presently, and still be playable on their hardware!

    1. Re:PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by AaronBrethorst · · Score: 0

      You know, the PSOne is still available today, and it came out in 1994 or 1995, at least ten years ago. I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be the case with the PS2 or the PS3. However, the specific reasons that Ken Kutaragi cites make my BS detector go ping ping ping. Essentially, it sounds like he's trying to convince people that they won't have to go buy a PS4 until 2015 (seems unlikely), and that they should consider the value of the PS3 over those ten years. Sigh... (also: yes, I do work for Microsoft. yes, I have an X360 pre-ordered. However, I do own a GBA, PS2, and NGC in addition to my XBox and I will probably end up buying a PS3 eventually in order to play MGS4.)

      --
      No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
    2. Re:PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Imagine using a 486 DX-33 to play computer games on

      That would have been, imo, during the golden age of PC gaming and a hell of a lot better than the bullshit games we have now. Relentless, Doom I & II, System Shock, Ultima Underworlds, Descent, Tie Fighter, Sam & Max, and a shit load of other great games were all 486 games. So yeah, I'll take it. Today's games are bump-mapped high-resolution shiny polished turds. Doom 3 may look nice on today's hardware, but it's no Doom II. What the industry need to do is quit focusing on the technology behind the games and give me some half decent games.

    3. Re:PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Sony might expect the PS3 to last 10 years, but will the market let it last that long?

      Would anybody have purchased the playstation if the N64 had cost $99 and the PS1 had cost $599? Well, yes, I'm sure people would, but a heck of a lot less than would have otherwise.

      Microsoft intends to price to 360 at about $249 to $299 US, from what I've heard. That is certainly pricey, but still within the realm of affordability. How many people are going to buy both the 360 and PS3 if the 360 is selling for $249 and the PS3 is selling for $499?

      The two systems are ballpark equivalent in power. Yes, I know, the PS3 has more raw CPU power (But can it be used?), and the 360 has more raw GPU power. The PS3 has BD-ROM support, the 360 has DVD. But they're not that far off eachother.

      So, being ballpark equivalent, if Sony sells the PS3 for a significantly higher price than Microsoft, AND Sony starts selling it 6 to 12 months later than Microsoft, I don't think they will get the sort of marketshare that people predict they will. There might be a lot of people that will pay $499 for a console, but there are a lot less people who will pay $499 for the PS3 and buy the 360 for $249 at the same time.

      Of course, I'm only guessing that the PS3 is going to cost $499. Sony said it won't be cheap, and people consider the 360 pricing to be reasonable, so I assume that means the PS3 is more than the 360. I'm just guessing, really.

    4. Re:PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by apoc06 · · Score: 1

      the truth is, pricing will be tricky. i can see the 360 costing upwards of 300+. the original xbox was 300 at the time of release, and they took a serious hurt on hardware sales. i dont see the 360 being cheaper for them to manufacture, so its probably higher than that. but hey, what do i know? im no market analyst.

      the ps3 will most likely follow suit and cost within $100 range of what the 360 ships for. much like sony did with the psp/ds release. even with all of the alleged functionality, i dont see sony dropping a 500 machine. they can afford to take the losses by selling much lower than cost.

      im assuming katuragi just wants consumers to know that its his intention to have a longer product cycle, so they dont feel burned by the fact that their older playstation is becoming obsolete. he "wants" to have a ten year [overall] cycle. releasing next gen systems too early leaves a bad taste in some gamers mouths when they realize they only got a four to five year lifecycle out of thier console, and are now looking at purchasing a new one that may or may not be almost twice as expensive.

      katuragi realizes that ms is treating the console world like the pc world. in four years you are obsolete... consumers know that consoles arent pcs, and therefore should require longer lifecycles. thank heaven consoles are THAT expensive yet... maybe thats why this generation [nintendo excluded] the consoles are being called entertainment centers, media centers, supercomputers... blah, blah, blah...

      the good news is that the ps2 and xbox arent quite dead yet. you arent forced to upgrade just yet. this upcoming end of generation overlap time is good to play catchup on titles you may have missed, or finish those titles you havent yet. better yet, buy those games you always wanted to try for cheaper.

    5. Re:PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Yup, Sony is on crack. IF they expect 10 years with the PS3, and in 5 years MS and Nintendo come out with the Xbox 720 and Nintendo SuperTurbo5000 with 4x the processing power, Sony will be dead int he water unless they have a new console as well. You can compete a generation back only if the competition has a tiny library (Saturn) or if its for a short time while your sonsole is in development.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    6. Re:PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind Microsoft (And Sony) sell their consoles at a huge loss, initially (They cost Microsoft more to make than they sell them for). Price is entirely dependant on how much of a loss the manufacturer is willing to make (They hope to make it back on game licencing/sales).

      Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't really have a choice about introducing their next-gen console (360) now. I don't think at all that they're treating the console world like the PC world, they're only realizing that Sony's next system is coming out, and they need something better than the XBox to compete against it. It's not a matter of treating it like the PC market, it's a matter of competition, staying alive in the marketplace.

      The fact that the 360 is coming out 6 to 12 months earlier than the PS3 is simply due to the fact that Sony was more ambitious with the PS3, so it is taking longer to finish. Microsoft went for a simpler approach, and so they're ready earlier. And they see an advantage in being the first to market.

    7. Re:PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by Elranzer · · Score: 1

      A "simpler approach" meaning they're using an already existing architecture (IBM PowerPC) vs Sony's decision to use not-yet-born architecture (IBM Cell). Don't make it sound like Microsoft's putting out a Pentium 3 vs Sony's Pentium 4 MP. Microsoft is just using a proven technology that's already out, and is overkill as far as videogame CPU's need (and the Cell is definite overkill), so that's the only reason it's coming out earlier.

    8. Re:PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      That's essentially what I meant, though you've got it a bit wrong. Both Microsoft and Sony are using the PowerPC architechture (Cell is PowerPC based). It's just that Microsoft's solution, while still custom, is less fancy. As in closer to existing technology. They also opted to offload a lot of the work to ATI, it seems; the XBox 360 sports 512MB of memory that is used for both system and GPU, and I imagine ATI probably played a hand in the development of the memory management system.

      This unified memory system seems to be simpler than the odd hybrid solution that Sony has going for the PS3. But I don't know much about the details of their respective memory systems.

      You may be wrong about the CPUs being overkill, though. The Cell has one main core and a bunch of small cores that are almost like DSPs. They have no branch predictor, so they are nearly useless for any code that needs any control flow (Like an IF statement). The only time they can really be used for branching is when the branching was random (Physics engines). Most stuff, however, will be limited to the PS3's one primary core (PPE).

      The XBox features three cores that are essentially the same as the Cell's PPE. However the difficulty here also means that many games will only use one of the three cores. Some engines and tools will certainly take advantage of the multiple cores, but many won't. Microsoft is going to offset this by offloading a lot of the 360's core software (The interface and media aspects) to the third core.

      It should also be noted that the cores themselves in both the PS3 and 360 are very ill suited for gaming. It is estimated that each core in the 360 are about twice as fast for gaming-related code as the P3 in the original XBox. That puts it at the speed roughly of a 1.5ghz P3. Not exactly a screaming fast CPU.

      You can argue that the 360 has three such cores, but obviously three cores doesn't lead to anywhere near three times the available power for game engines.

      As I understand it the 360's cores are ideal for rendering. This means that the 360 and PS3 are going to have incredible graphics, especially paired with their insanely powerful GPUs. But other areas such as AI are going to suffer as a result.

    9. Re:PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      I've been with PC gaming since, well, Sim City sat on a 3 1/4" floppy disk in my old 286.

      And the gameplay today is no better than it was all the way back then. Heck, DooM III in it's entirety had fewer monsters than some levels of DooM2! What about games like Elite? The dramatic storyline of Wing Commander? Freelancer just didn't compare.

      I will say that improved graphics are important! Not as important as decent gameplay, that's what keeps you playing the game and it's what makes you buy the sequel. The instant gratification age of the consoles is upon us all, however, and eye candy is being substituted for playability.

      However, eternal optimist that I am, I feel that decent graphics and gameplay can co-exist. For example, whether you like them or not, games like Morrowind and World of Warcraft are very good examples of how to make a game and have compelling gameplay as well as decent graphics that significantly enhance the experience. Quite often in Morrowind I would turn off the map and just look at the scenery, the roads, mountain ranges and rivers and decide to explore by following the geography just to see what was on the other side. GTA is another good example of really immersive gameplay and okay graphics (Well, the graphics are quite dated now).

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    10. Re:PS3 to last 10 years, unlikely by sbryant · · Score: 1

      Imagine using a 486 DX-33 to play computer games on, not quite so entertaining is it.

      Just a small nitpick: a 486 DX-33 was not state of the art 10 years ago (middle of 1995), given that the Pentium had already been released. A better comparison would be a 200MHz Pentium Pro (released November 1995), as that was brand new technology, and was significant step up in performance.

      Your point is still valid though. Even a dual P-Pro is not worth considering when compared to hardware from 4 years ago (CPU speeds well over 1GHz), let alone today's stuff. This doesn't even take into account changes in other parts of the system (graphics, disk etc).

      The point that most people will not be using the PS3 at its maximum resolution may be true, and it's possible that the machine has significant parallel processing capabilities that may be significantly underused to begin with.

      Remember the Atari 2600? It took software developers some years before they were getting to the limits of what the machine could do. Although it may take some time before the PS3 is being used to its fullest, I'm sure Sony will have effectively obsoleted it with a successor, long before the 10 years are up.

      -- Steve

  7. Well... by Momoru · · Score: 3, Funny

    PS2 to Have 10 Year Lifecycle, PS3 Not Cheap

    Well ok everyone pointed out the typo in the headline, but it's actually fairly correct...because if the PS3 is as expensive as everyone keeps speculating, my PS2 will certainly have a 10 year lifecycle. :P

  8. Error in title? by Yerase · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Doesn't the article say the PS3 has the 10 year lifecycle, not the PS2?

  9. Not targeted towards households? by DingerX · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "I'm aware that with all these technologies, the PS3 can't be offered at a price that's targeted towards households. I think everyone can still buy it if they wanted to," said Kutaragi to a mostly Japanese crowd. "But we're aiming for consumers throughout the world. So we're going to have to do our best (in containing the price)."


    So what does this mean? Is sony aiming for businesses that deman premium gaming consoles, or rich bachelors with no life and tons of money?
    1. Re:Not targeted towards households? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a rich bachelor with tons of money, I'll have you know that I'll be having sexual intercourse with many anonymous women rather than playing video games.

    2. Re:Not targeted towards households? by mattACK · · Score: 1

      I _really_ wanted a 3DO when they launched. I played it at the local Babbages every time I went in. The graphics were amazing. I never bought one.

      Fast forward to today - $700 console launch means awful flameout and riding on horrible "Army Men" Toy Story spin-off knock off crap.

      Now I _really_ want a PS3... but pattern recognition is a hallmark of intelligence. If the price is high I'll take a pass.

      --


      "My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
    3. Re:Not targeted towards households? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't ever write "Army Men" again please!

      Some of us actually had to work on those titles...trauma...

      FU MM & RH

    4. Re:Not targeted towards households? by mattACK · · Score: 1

      I beg you pardon. You have my pity.

      --


      "My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
  10. Sony= crap? No way will it make it 10 yrs by spineboy · · Score: 1

    Everything that I've bought from Sony in the last 5 years has died/broken in about 2-3 years. SOme of my other friends have noticed that as well.
    Anyone else have a similar experience?

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Sony= crap? No way will it make it 10 yrs by Momoru · · Score: 1

      I've heard similar things, most people I know have had the PS2 DVD drive break, I dunno if i lucked out or just take good care of mine, but i've had it since 2000 and not a single problem has occured with it.

    2. Re:Sony= crap? No way will it make it 10 yrs by pthor1231 · · Score: 1

      I've had my PS2 last since I bought it in 01, and the original playstation that me and my brother have still works as well. I also have a miniDisc player tahts about 3 or 4 years old, and dented like crazy, but it still plays like a champ.

    3. Re:Sony= crap? No way will it make it 10 yrs by QuantaStarFire · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who's on his third PS2. GTA:SA killed his last one. His original PS2 just...broke. :/

    4. Re:Sony= crap? No way will it make it 10 yrs by mink · · Score: 1

      For some odd reason my PS2 boots Zone of Enders, but locks up after the Playstation2 logo (it's booted from the disk and should go onto the other logs and menu). Ever other game I have on the same kind of media works fine, as do all the other types of PS2 media. The ZOE media is clean and not scratched.

      I'm thinking thay maybe my version 2 PS2 is not compatable somehow.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  11. Disk read error.... by OK+PC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you spend a fortune on this machine, expecting it to last 10 years and after a few years disk read errors rear their ugly head! Great!

    --
    Did you get that thing I sent ya?
  12. Re:Love the spelling errors by grub · · Score: 3, Insightful


    I think Zonk has been drinking.

    Perhaps. His mother certainly was.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  13. Oh come on guys! by Xlipse · · Score: 1

    This is marketing BS.

    Technology, including a game console, will NOT last 10 year, despite the "lifespan" claim.

    Every geek knows this.

    Opinion: They are probably hoping this makes Microsoft look bad for a somewhat short Xbox 1 lifespan.?

    1. Re:Oh come on guys! by apoc06 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the xbox has had what... a four year life cycle? MS has stated that they released the first xbox as a simple test of the gaming industry. i think that their significant losses have prompted them to rework their strategy.

      supposedly the first xbox supported HD output up to 1080i. http://hardware.gamespot.com/Microsoft-Xbox-9399-O -4-4 thats one of the more highly touted features of their next gen system; its nothing new... i think that they saw the rise of the mod community and the media center capabilities http://www.xboxmediacenter.com/ of the xbox being used and realized this was their chance to turn the tides on their debt problems. they are playing their hand. feeding us back what we originally wanted from them in the first place. great marketing!

      what this has done is cause the other companies to jump onto the next generation. i wouldnt be surprised if the ps3 and revolution where not originally supposed to be released until 2007-2008 or so. sony and nintendo have to play their next gen card earlier now in order to compete.

      i think this is a prime example of how MS entering the industry is diminishing it. sure we get next generation graphics and performance sooner, but we are going to take the hit on our pockets earlier and more often too.

    2. Re:Oh come on guys! by tbannist · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised at all, this is, after all, Microsoft's standard tactic for defeating entrenched opponents. Push up the development cycle speed to the point where your opponent can't afford to release as frequently and as reliably as you.

      The did this to WordPerfect to establish office in it's monopoly position. At one point, new versions of Word were being scheduled every 6-9 months to drain funds out of Corel.

      On the other hand, Sony may well plan for a 10 year life cycle, and they may be smoking crack. However, as everyone should know, what you plan to do and what you actually do can be two very different things. If Microsoft puts out another console 4 years from now, Sony will have one out in 5 years, and they'll just say (honestly) Microsoft forced them to change their plans.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  14. nice link by portwojc · · Score: 1

    Nice link for the hard-to-find - it's from Feb of 2001 - this is 2005 hardly a hard to find console now.

    1. Re:nice link by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      He is just pointing out that if the PS3 is as hard to find when it first comes out as the PS2 was in 2001 Sony will have more difficulty because the XBox360 will be breathing on their neck whereas in 2001 there wasn't much competition (would you consider the Dreamcast as competition to the PS2 in 2001?).

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  15. 10 year thing said before by BinaryOpty · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sony said this already with the PS2 before its release. It's just a marketing scheme to try and get people to accept their over-priced day-one purchase by saying "Hey, this console will still be sold 10 years in the future it will be so popular!" It all stems from the PSOne's popularity: the Playstation was released in 1995 and is still sold in stores, so it has a "10 year lifecycle", especially since the PS3's appearance next year will push the PSOne off of the market. The PS2 was released at the middle point of that 10 years, and the PS3 will be relased in the middle of the PS2's 10 years. The PS2 needs to last until 2010 for its 10 year lifecycle to be true, and the PS3 needs to last until 2016. The whole lifecycle thing is just speculation on Sony's part based on the PS1's sales curve. If Blu-Ray's not accepted or one of a million other things happens, the PS3's lifecycle might be cut short.

    1. Re:10 year thing said before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all marketing. All of their systems so far have had a "10 year" lifecycle. All it means is they'll still publish games for the PS2 (whether or not anyone will bother developing anything for the PS2 in 2009 or the PS3 in 2014 is another matter). Those last 5 years of titles are low-res ports, and compliations of older games. (Wasn't there a FF collection for the PS2 a year or so ago?) They're still probably going to release PS4 in 2010, and that will have a "10-year" lifecycle as well.

      From what I recall, MS is calling a spade a spade and killing publishing for Xbox pretty soon after Xbox 360 comes out (or at least downplaying Xbox titles).

    2. Re:10 year thing said before by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1

      "If Blu-Ray's not accepted or one of a million other things happens, the PS3's lifecycle might be cut short."

      Yeah, like most people not buying it because it's way too expensive?

      I'm gonna wait and see the price first and then wait and see for reliability (cue the first versions of the PS and PS2 and their reliability problems) and then it just might be affordable and with enough good games to be worth buying.

      Or I might win the lottery and buy it on release day.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    3. Re:10 year thing said before by prockcore · · Score: 1

      the Playstation was released in 1995 and is still sold in stores, so it has a "10 year lifecycle"

      No, it has a 10 year lifespan. It's lifecycle ended when the PS2 was released.

      Sony is literally saying that the PS3 is going to be it for the next 10 years. PS4 will be due in 2016

    4. Re:10 year thing said before by jimi+the+hippie · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link with a quote to show that they made the 10-year claim with the PS2??

    5. Re:10 year thing said before by BinaryOpty · · Score: 1

      I just googled "10 year PS2" and got lots of articles quoting it from the 2004 GDC, here's the I'm Feeling Lucky link: http://news.techwhack.com/4/sony-sees-10-year-life -for-playstation-2-console/

    6. Re:10 year thing said before by jimi+the+hippie · · Score: 1

      This was your claim: "Sony said this already with the PS2 before its release."

      I still see no evidence for it.

  16. What kind of console is this guy going to buy? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    Methinks Sony's production woes are going to be their achillies heel this time...

    I want to know, because I don't want to run into this guy in an online game on the off chance he'll say "Methinks" again.

    It hurts my brain.

    1. Re:What kind of console is this guy going to buy? by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      Methinks "methinks" is a right proper word, meself.

  17. really, really, stupid by Malor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trying to plan a console to last ten years is ridiculous. Yes, the rate of change has slowed. No, it hasn't slowed that much.

    How can any company even remotely guess what will be current and popular in ten years? FIVE years is stretching it. The PS2 was released in late 2000, and it was really obsolete by early 2004. You can (obviously) still get games for it here in 2005, but pretty much everything else on the market was consistently better by then.

    If you assume a generation time of 2 years (shorter than the commonly-accepted 18 months, but computers aren't speeding up as quickly anymore), each additional 2 years of lifespan will make the initial console twice as expensive. Microsoft is obviously planning for 5 years, and they're launching at around $300-ish. If Sony wants to last 10, they'd basically have to add two and a half generations' worth more hardware.... they'd probably have to ship at around $1800. And they'd have to guess everything PERFECTLY.

    In other words, Sony is hoping for no unpredictable innovations in the next ten years. Hey, that's a bet I'd put billions on!

    The PS3 is looking rather like the Itanic, er, Itanium. Sony has spent untold billions on development. Their product will do some things a lot better, but it's not as good at general purpose processing. They can't ship anywhere near the same price point. They're trying to predict the future ten years out, and it doesn't look like they can accurately predict their own ability to ship their product. (They're still dropping features, so they're probably not seven months from putting product on shelves). March 2006 is very likely marketing spin to hurt Microsoft.

    Guesses: Sony will ship late (VERY late) and too expensive for the mass market. By the time they get the price to the level that Joe Sixpack will buy their hardware, it will be firmly and permanently in second place. Possibly even in third. It will still be a viable platform, but the XBox will have enormous momentum by then. Sony will never make back what they spent on Cell.

    My really daring prediction: Microsoft will actually make money on their console division.

    1. Re:really, really, stupid by deinol · · Score: 1

      The PS2 was released in late 2000, and it was really obsolete by early 2004.

      Um, what? Obsolete how? What has replaced it? Games still come out for it. There will be games coming out for it for the next 2 to 3 years.

      Besides, when a company says 10 year life cycle, they mean they plan to continue production and support of the console and it's accesories for that long. It doesn't mean they won't have the PS4 out around 2010.

      Everyone twists the facts to say their favorite console will win. We haven't even seen the pricetag for each yet. When Sony says it won't be cheap, that's not the same as saying it'll be more expensive than an Xbox 360. $300 doesn't sound 'cheap' to me. It could end up exactly the same price. Probably will be very close, they aren't that stupid.

      The truth of the matter is, all three will make some good hardware. I'd say nobody has pushed the current generation to the limit yet, although some have done an excellent job. What will determine a 'winner' is which gets the best selection of games. People bought the PS2 to play FFX. The Xbox to play Halo. GC, well, I got it for Smash and Mario Kart.

      Looking at how many games I've got for each system, I'd say PS2, then GC, then Xbox. I'm sure everyone is a little different. But the point is, if you sell a billion consoles at a loss, each of those people needs to buy 5-10 games to break even. So you have to have a lot of popular games on your system to make money.

      Unless you are nintendo, who actual makes money everytime you buy a system.

      Personally, I don't want any of them to "win". Competition is good. It was lack of competition for the Super NES that led nintendo into complacency and a poor showing for the N64. I like have three consoles around, it keeps them busy being innovative and writing cool interesting games like Katamari. I'll get all of them eventually, it let's me have only the best games. Ok, not really, but at least I have a wider selection to choose from. So the console with more good games will get more of my money.

      --
      Got Apathy?
    2. Re:really, really, stupid by samdu · · Score: 1

      Erm... The PS2 seems to be selling an awful lot of games for an "obsolete" system. Have you seen the latest games for the PS2? They look anything BUT obsolete. If anything, the PS2 will have a similar shelf life to the PSOne. I know at least a handful of people that are waiting for the PS3 release to buy a PSTwo.

      As for MS having too much of a lead for Sony to overcome - remember the Dreamcast... I'm not going to predict that the X-Box 360 is going to flame out like the Dreamcast did, but being first to market has historically had very little to do with dominance in the console market. What matters most is the games. And this generation has proved that more than any other. The PS2 has a vast library of compelling content. That's reflected in its market penetration. X-Box and GameCube have fewer titles and are locked in a defacto tie (worldwide) for second place. And each of those systems has fallen into a niche. Nintendo is the young gamer niche system. Microsoft went after the older gamers. If Microsoft (or Nintendo) intends to gain on Sony, they'll need to rely on more than Halo to do it.

    3. Re:really, really, stupid by samdu · · Score: 1

      Oh, and btw - what in Sony's history would lead you to believe that they'll ship a console late?

    4. Re:really, really, stupid by Rayonic · · Score: 1
      The PS2 was released in late 2000, and it was really obsolete by early 2004.

      Um, what? Obsolete how?

      Obsolete in that it's nowhere near state-of-the-art anymore. That multiplatform developers often have to cut out features and tone down graphics to get their game to work on the PS2.

      Original author certainly didn't mean "obsolete" as in "not useful or enjoyable anymore".
    5. Re:really, really, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PS2 would be an obvious example. It was supposed to ship early '99, ended up shipping late 2000; they had supply problems for over a year after launching it.

    6. Re:really, really, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, plenty of younger gamers played Halo.

  18. Re:Love the spelling errors by Khuffie · · Score: 1
    somehow i find it strange that the grand parent got modded down and you got modded insightful.

    I think the mods have been drinking...

  19. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Neo-Geo will have come company in the overpriced, console graveyard.

  20. Cell distributed architecture allow expansion? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

    The hype for the Cell said that if the Cell in your TV, or toaster wasn't being used to it's limits by that device then it would be added to the power of anything that needed it on your network, which sounds like complete rubbish, but it hints that 1+7 cores at 3.2 Ghz might not be the end of the PS3 line - as Cells become ubiquitous, Sony could simply throw more cores in the box, or sell more horsepower in a box as an add-on.

    Maybe we should be looking at this claim of the PS3 having a 10 year life in the same way that IBM's XT has so far had a 20 year life?

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    1. Re:Cell distributed architecture allow expansion? by Sir_Brizz · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's rubbish.

      Especially at the current time, networking is not a viable platform to increase processing speed. I guarantee it never will be.

      the only way they could promise this without lying would be to have each of the critical components removable and upgradeable, which we all know is not going to happen. Plus, it's already been shown that Cell is great for floating point math, but not for much else. It's doubtful that the "multiple core" complex people have right now is going to bear greater numbers than single cored AMD64's in the very near future.

    2. Re:Cell distributed architecture allow expansion? by Elranzer · · Score: 1

      That's all the PS3 needs is a Sega CD / 32x type add-on to hammer the final nail to its coffin.

    3. Re:Cell distributed architecture allow expansion? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      Before you 'guarantee'that networking isn't a viable way of increasing processing speed, I suggest you take a look at Apple's Distributed Audio Processing in Logic Audio, which does exactly this with nothing cleverer than 2 Macs and an Ethernet cable.

      Apple has also shipped plenty of single processor Macs with slots for a 2nd CPU, and many servers are similarly upgradeable. Consoles have had mysterious expansion connectors with the system bus exposed on them for generations, just look underneath an N64 for proof. The machines don't even have to be upgradeable, Sony could simply launch faster/more core versions during the machine's life and hope gamers trade up.

      As for the AMD64, how is that remotely relevant to Games Consoles? In case you hadn't noticed, all 3 of the next gen consoles went with IBM's Power architecture, Microsoft have 3 cores, and Sony 8. If you want to back single cores for console gaming, I think you'll find a wide choice of the Phoenix or the Phoenix.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    4. Re:Cell distributed architecture allow expansion? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      A couple points. First off, distributed processing is only good for somethings, because network latency can get in the way if you're shuffling a lot of data back and forth. That's why it wouldn't work well for gaming.

      Second, even if you could get it working acceptably, then you run into the issue of the console no longer being a stable platform. Meaning that the developers no longer have a consistent set of hardware to optimize for. And that's half the appeal of consoles. The cell in my PS3 might be able to link up with the cell in my TV, my stereo, and my refrigerator, but no one's going to release a game targeted towards that much extra hardware, because not everyone is going to have all those extra cell enabled appliances available for use.

      Multiple cores is a little easier, because they're so close together, and because the hardware designer has complete control over the interconnects. So it'll hopefully be as fast as possible, and consistent over all the systems they produce.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  21. Re:Love the spelling errors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think the mods have been drinking.

    Perhaps. Their mothers certainly were.

  22. cheap marketing by xenxes · · Score: 1

    It's just one of the many reasons they give for the initially high RSP. Some consumers won't overanalyze the marketing meme and believe it to be good reason for a hefty investment, especially parents with nagging kids. Even though 4-5 years down the line a new blackward compatible console will be out.

  23. I read this article and think back by owyn999 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the uber-expensive 3DO supposed to have an overly long life cycle, wasn't it so hardware intensive that it was overly expensive. Wasn't it supposed to have all the Hardware that someone would need for the rest of their lives... Where is my 3DO anyway???

    --
    Where's that cap to the Decanter of Endless water???
  24. N64 to GameCube transition by tepples · · Score: 1

    There has never been a next generation console release that coincided with the end of game production for the previous generation.

    Sure, the NES and Super NES coexisted for a while, and so did the Super NES and N64, the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance, and the PS1 and PS2, but the N64 was already dead when the GameCube came out in North America.

  25. whiskey tango foxtrot by Cinematique · · Score: 1

    ...Someone needs to put a stop to the spinsters at Sony Computer Entertainment.

    Am I the only one who sees this as nothing more than a ploy to make the PS3 appear to be more attractive as an "investment?"

    "Invest" in a PS3 because it'll let you play the latest overpriced EA game, watch BluRay movies, manage your finances, even butter your toast! Why buy any other console when this is one is designed to last a DECADE! Only 15 easy payments of $49.95! But wait, call right now and we'll make one payment FOR YOU!

    Guh.

    They're merely trying to gloss over (or soften the impact from) what'll be an insane initial price point.

    Still... when PS2s first came out, people with way too much money to spend plunked down around $800 on eBay for imported PS2s when they began to trickle out into the market. Maybe this time around, SCE should charge a hundred or two over cost and eliminate the middle-men.

    At any rate, while Nintendo's vague comments about Revolution are annoying, to say the least ( HA HA.) at least they're not trumping their product up by being a pack of liars.

    Ten years? Are they really that dumb? Or do they simply think the buying public is?

    Don't answer that. :(

    1. Re:whiskey tango foxtrot by C0rinthian · · Score: 2, Funny

      I dunno, if the PS3 has a toast buttering feature, I'd be sold.

      Buttered toast rocks.

    2. Re:whiskey tango foxtrot by MadMoses · · Score: 1
      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
  26. Gonna be a revolution by shoptroll · · Score: 1

    Nintendo and their "cheaper" revolution is sounding better each day.

    --
    Insert Sig Here
  27. Sony chief warns PS3 will be "expensive by grimharvest · · Score: 1

    So if he's not announcing the price now then when??

  28. I think someone's compensating for something... by Tanmi-Daiow · · Score: 1

    ...seriously. a ten year lifespan, superpowerful and super expensive. Not every man can have one of these...

    --
    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
  29. Sega all over again? by kn0tw0rk · · Score: 0

    Why is it I get the feeling this will be a re-enactment of sega's follies with the Saturn?

    Just my opinion, I think the real reason that the PSOne did so well was that it was reasonably easy to mod-chip to allow pirated games to work.

    --
    See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
  30. ps3 10 years of life lol by jamesjames · · Score: 0

    Sony launched it ps2 years before the xbox and now xbox has it next gen cousle coming out nearly 6 months ahead of Sony could this be Sony was milking the ps2 for everythignit worth. As a owner of 5 ps2 stations half of them not working I cant beleive this guy said it would last 10 years get real man maybe in a air tight room with a full time security guard shurley bot my household. ANywas just hope its less than $400 when it comes out but I am going to buy an xbox360 and depending on how good it is I may not buy a ps3

    1. Re:ps3 10 years of life lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Five PS2's and half are broken?

      You're either:

      - Exaggerating

      - Lying

      - Clumsy

      - Sticky-fingered

      - Stupid

    2. Re:ps3 10 years of life lol by CokoBWare · · Score: 1

      I have owned only 1 PS2 since 2002, and I've dropped it, dismantled it to unjar the DVD drive cuz it fell off my TV stand, let it get dusty, installed the network card and then a drive, and I've NEVER had to replace it.

      You obviously are careless with your PS2, or something.

  31. $60 games on the way... by richman555 · · Score: 1

    I think I heard or read somewhere that games for xbox 360 and ps3 will be about $60 (new). I like a good game as much as the next person, but isn't this a bit much? If I pay $60 for a game, it better be a *great* game. I also know development costs have risen significantly for these new systems but it doesn't ensure better quality games. I am definitely starting to feel this round of console wars will be won based on overall price and value. Making an initial $600-$700-$800 investment on a PS3 and a few games, memory card, extra contoller, would definitely make me hold off on buying one. An $800 total price tag sounds crazy to me, although it is quite possible.

  32. Rev Tech not for sheep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All powerful computing relies on floating point maths and parallel processing. DSP, Video, Speech and 3D recognition to name a few. Grids make this even better. Set up an OpenMosix cluster of old P1s and run a povray render to see for yourself.
    You'll still have your PS3 in 10 years for sure, even if it is connected to your grid of PS4 to 9s.

    This is new revolutionary tech and obviously only suitable for us bleeding edge wolves. The sheep can stay safe in their conservative X boxes.

  33. what? by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 1

    Not targetted at households? What are they targetting it at, the barn?

    --
    1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.